Submitted by Fern, who says:
Frustrated with illegible service patterns and a pretty ugly system map (viewable here – Cam), I made my own line map for the Caltrain regional railway along the SF Peninsula. Curious what you think!
Transit Maps says:
This is a great example of how a transit diagram doesn’t need to be flashy or over designed to be successful – just clear and easy to understand. Similar in execution to Japanese service diagrams that I’ve seen, there’s very little ambiguity here: each service has its own route line with stops clearly shown and interchanges with other regional transit lines denoted, all backed up by a clear legend. It’s not rocket science, but it’s nice to see a simple concept executed so clearly.
A couple of minor comments: I’d probably move the San Francisco station label up so that the “4th & King” text lines up with the station dots, just to give a bit more breathing room before the next label down. Similarly, I’d probably shift the connection lozenge for the “B” line at Tamien over to line up vertically with the others, just to keep all that similar information in its own column.
Our final word: A simple concept, but executed well. Definitely a step up from official efforts.
The diagram that your contributor has submitted does, indeed, have lots of useful information. However, it should not be considered a replacement for the official Caltrain website map which is quite specifically to show which stations are in which zones. They are actually complementary to each other. The diagram is helpful with frequency and stopping patterns but the website map, being topographical, tells me many other things such as where the stations are in relation to each other and to other locations. For someone familiar with the system some pieces of information, such as the geography of the line, may be in their head. However, for a first time user, and particularly someone who is not familiar with the area, the diagram on its own would not provide all the information needed. Looking at both of these as I am from the other side of the Atlantic Ocean I would consider both to be essential when planning a visit.
When Harry Beck first produced his London Underground Map in 1933 it was most innovative. However, it has never entirely replaced a geographical map where scale can put locations and systems into context. By all means enhance the information provided but do not consider that one is superior to or replaces the other.
It’s not rocket science, it’s Bullet science. 😉